Advertisement

Factorial validity of the effort–reward imbalance scale: evidence from multi-sample and three-wave follow-up studies

  • Johanna Rantanen
  • Taru Feldt
  • Katriina Hyvönen
  • Ulla Kinnunen
  • Anne Mäkikangas
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The present study investigated whether the factor structure of the effort–reward imbalance (ERI) scale (Siegrist et al. Soc Sci Med 58:1483–1499, 2004) remains same across two white-collar samples (i.e., factorial group invariance) and across three measurement times (i.e., factorial time invariance).

Methods

The factorial group invariance was tested using two different samples including 1,301 managers and 758 young white-collar professionals. The factorial time invariance was tested in the latter sample with a four-year three-wave follow-up design.

Results

The confirmatory factor analysis performed supported the theoretically based structure of the ERI scale, that is, the scale included two first-order factors of effort and overcommitment and one second-order factor of reward with first-order factors of esteem, career opportunities, and job security. The factorial group invariance of this structure was also supported. In addition, the factor loadings of all factors remained same across three measurements; thus, lending support for the factorial time invariance.

Conclusion

The ERI scale was found to be a valid tool to measure costs and gains of social exchanges at work as well as individual orientation toward work in these two occupational samples including a longitudinal study design.

Keywords

Effort–reward imbalance Confirmatory factor analysis Factorial validity Longitudinal study Managers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The preparation of this article was supported by funding from the Academy of Finland awarded to Johanna Rantanen (138369), and from the Finnish Work Environment Fund awarded to Taru Feldt (project 105363) and Ulla Kinnunen (project 104129).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Backé E, Seidler A, Latza U, Rossnagel K, Schumann B (2012) The role of psychosocial stress at work for the development of cardiovascular diseases: a systematic review. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 85:65–79. doi: 10.1007/s00420-011-0643-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bollen KA (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. de Jonge J, van der Linden S, Schaufeli W, Peter R, Siegrist J (2008) Factorial invariance and stability of the effort-reward imbalance scales: a longitudinal analysis of two samples with different time lags. Int J Behav Med 15:62–72. doi: 10.1007/BF03003075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feldt T, Huhtala M, Kinnunen U, Hyvönen K, Mäkikangas A, Sonnentag S (in press) Long-term patterns of effort-reward imbalance and overcommitment: Investigating occupational well-being and recovery experiences as outcomes. Work Stress.Google Scholar
  5. Griep R, Rotenberg L, Vasconcellos A, Landsbergis P, Comaru C, Alves M (2009) The psychometric properties of demand-control and effort-reward imbalance scales among Brazilian nurses. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:1163–1172. doi: 10.1007/s00420-009-0460-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hu L, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hyvönen K (2011) Personal work goals put into context: Associations with work environment and occupational well-being. Jyväskylä Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research, 409, University of Jyväskylä, Finland. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-39-4240-3
  8. Hyvönen K, Feldt T, Salmela-Aro K, Kinnunen U, Mäkikangas A (2009) Young managers’ drive to thrive: a personal work goal approach to burnout and work engagement. J Vocat Behav 75:183–196. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kinnunen U, Feldt T, Mäkikangas A (2008) Testing the effort-reward imbalance model among Finnish managers: the role of perceived organizational support. J Occup Health Psychol 13:114–127. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.2.114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kline RB (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Little TD (1997) Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: practical and theoretical issues. Multivar Behav Res 32:53–76. doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Liukkonen J, Leskinen E (1999) The reliability and validity of scores from the children’s version of the perception of success questionnaire. Educ Psychol Meas 59:651–664. doi: 10.1177/00131649921970080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. MacCallum RC, Browne MW, Cai L (2006) Testing differences between nested covariance structure models: power analysis and null hypotheses. Psychol Methods 11:19–35. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.1.19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mäkikangas A, Feldt T, Kinnunen U, Tolvanen A (2012) Do low burnout and high work engagement always go hand in hand? Investigation of the energy and identification dimensions in longitudinal data. Anxiety Stress Copin: Int J 25:93–116. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2011.565411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meredith W (1993) Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 58:525–543. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2009) Mplus user’s guide, 5th ed. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  17. Satorra A, Bentler PM (2001) A scaled difference Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika 66:507–514. doi: 10.1007/BF02296192 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmitt N, Kuljanin G (2008) Measurement invariance: review of practice and implications. Hum Resource Manage R 18:210–222. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Siegrist J (1996) Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. J Occup Health Psychol 1:27–41. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Siegrist J, Siegrist K, Weber I (1986) Sociological concepts in the etiology of chronic disease: the case of ischemic heart disease. Soc Sci Med 22:247–253. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536%2886%2990073-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Siegrist J, Starke D, Chandola T, Godin I, Marmot M, Niedhammer I, Peter R (2004) The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: European comparisons. Soc Sci Med 58:1483–1499. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536%2803%2900351-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siegrist J, Wege N, Puehlhofer F, Wahrendorf M (2009) A short generic measures of work stress in the era of globalization: effort-reward imbalance. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 82:1005–1013. doi: 10.1007/s00420-008-0384-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stansfeld S, Candy B (2006) Psychosocial work environment and mental health—a meta-analytic review. Scand J Work Environ Health 32:443–462. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsutsumi A, Kawakami N (2004) A review of empirical studies on the model of effort–reward imbalance at work: reducing occupational stress by implementing a new theory. Soc Sci Med 59:2335–2359. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.03.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tsutsumi A, Ishitake TPR, Siegrist J, Matoba T (2001) The Japanese version of the effort-reward imbalance questionnaire: a study in dental technicians. Work Stress 15:86–96. doi: 10.1080/02678370110064618 Google Scholar
  26. van Vegchel N, de Jonge J, Bosma H, Schaufeli W (2005) Reviewing the effort–reward imbalance model: drawing up the balance of 45 empirical studies. Soc Sci Med 60:1117–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.043 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE (2000) A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods 3:4–69. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yadegarfar et al (2012) Psychometric properties of the Farsi version of the effort-reward imbalance questionnaire: a longitudinal study in employees of synthetic fibre factory in Iran. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. doi: 10.1007/s00420-012-0750-z
  29. Zurlo M, Pes D, Siegrist J (2010) Validity and reliability of the effort-reward imbalance questionnaire in a sample of 673 Italian teachers. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 83:665–674. doi: 10.1007/s00420-010-0512-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johanna Rantanen
    • 1
  • Taru Feldt
    • 1
  • Katriina Hyvönen
    • 1
  • Ulla Kinnunen
    • 2
  • Anne Mäkikangas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of JyväskyläUniversity of JyväskyläFinland
  2. 2.School of Social Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations